Disclaimer 1: I’m no attorney. I’m just fairly versed in trademark law thanks to my marketing career.Disclaimer 2: I do NOT endorse use of the name “Redskins.” I think the name needs to go, and that an apology is due.

Contrary to many media reports, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decision to revoke federal registration from “Washington Redskins” does not make the name and marks available to all who wish to use them. If the decision stands, you will no longer see a little ® next to the name. That’s it. The legal validity of “Washington Redskins” as a trademark stands.

In the United States, you do not own a trademark by registering it. You own it by being the first to market products or services with the mark across state lines. You need no ® to own it or defend your claim to it.

The ® does no more than put would-be mark poachers on notice that you are so serious about owning the mark that you took the trouble to register it with the government. The red tape-less, common-law alternative is the TM. It, too, alerts would-be poachers that you claim the mark as your exclusive property, and it holds up in court. You can also use and protect a trademark with no ® or TM at all. Again, the key to trademark ownership and protection is to use it in a consistent, trademark-like manner across state lines.

Redskins trademark attorney Bob Raskopf was correct when he said, “Today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the teams’ ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo.” Revocation of the ® does not preclude claiming the name as a trademark, with or without the use of TM.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office doesn’t decide what is and isn’t a valid, protected trademark. That would be for a court to decide, and that won’t happen until someone else tries to use the mark and the team sues to stop them. Given the deservedly bad PR surrounding the name these days, let’s hope the name and marks just go away.

Say what you will about Domino’s pizza. I’ll probably agree.

It’s just that, well, I like watching this guy.

I admit it. I’m obsessed.

Once I order, I must—MUST—keep the Domino’s window open so I can track the progress of my pizza in real time, even as I (allegedly) work on other stuff. Sure enough, within minutes of Stage 5’s lighting up, there is a knock at my door.

Certainly I am not the only one so obsessed. I think this is marketing brilliance. Involvement devices are always a good idea. This one is more than involving. It makes waiting for your pizza fun.

Of Caveat Emptor and Fertilizer

This is my latest piece published on Lendio.com. I wish they hadn’t added the subtitle, “7 Tips to Make Your Bank's Marketing Relevant,” which is not even close to the intent of the piece. This would have been better: “Calling unethical marketers on the carpet.” To read the post on Lendio’s website,click here.

A recent clinical study has shown that retaining the RESPONSE Agency reduces the risk of getting cancer.I conducted the study myself. It’s poorly designed, shamelessly biased, and wholly unscientific. But that doesn’t mean I can’t slap on it words like “clinical” and “study,” and with the right weasels and disclaimers legally relieve the gullible of cash.Put down your pitchforks and torches. I’m not serious about marketing my shop as a cancer preventive. I am, however, quite serious about how easy it is to mislead within the law. If you work in marketing, you can count on someday being asked to do exactly that. What course will you take?

Use on crops. Not in advertising.

Not all marketers accept responsibility for what and how they sell. They argue that the prospective buyer is responsible for checking facts. They call their position caveat emptor. I call it a bovine byproduct useful for growing crops. You cannot mislead people and then blame them when you succeed.Extremes make for easy decisions. It doesn’t take much moral fiber to reject an overpromising headline like, “Our SBA loans cure baldness.” At the other end of the honesty spectrum, it doesn’t take much common sense to reject an overdisclosing headline like, “Get a HELOC and pray you don’t lose your home.” Moral dilemmas tend to pop up between the extremes, in those darned shades of gray.Your tolerance for gray is your business. Not that you asked, but here are some guidelines that I recommend keeping in mind:Do your homework. I’m embarrassed to admit to having created ads for products I later learned did not work as the client had represented to me. Now I double-check my clients’ claims. Not surprisingly, only the honest ones appreciate it.Does small type contradict large? Small type, a regulatory fact of life for banks, is a problem only when it is used to weasel out of the larger impression an ad conveys.Speaking of weasels, come on. You know when you’re using phrases like “as little as” and “results are not typical” to hedge versus to be responsible.Testimonials are no excuse. I asked a would-be client, “Does the product work?” He replied, “No, but we have testimonials from lots of happy customers who swear it does.” I declined the client.Twist not thy data. As demonstrated by my facetious cancer claim, numbers are easy to twist. Surely with a bit of work you can find something true to say about the product.Do you use the product? I find it telling when someone who touts a product doesn’t or, worse, wouldn’t use it.Would you recommend the product to your kids? How about to your aging, fixed-income parents?I believe that most marketing is above-board and honorable. I also believe that marketers who venture deep into the gray often do so unwittingly. These I hope will take another look.